House Republicans finally came up with a good idea. If Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats continue to avoid their duty and pass a budget, the House wants to dock their pay. In other words, if you don’t do your job, you don’t get paid.

That’s pretty darn hard to defend to the American Public.

The only problem is, our Congress Critters got pretty down in the dumps because, well, they are universally hated, so every time they voted themselves a pay increase, the public spit fire.

So they devised a little scheme. They can’t increase pay for themselves, only for the next session congress.

So they can’t be accused of voting themselves a raise.

“It is for the next Congress” they can say. Even though most of them will be back – like the plague.

So when Speaker Boehner proposed “No Budget – No Pay” a number of the greedy little grubs began chanting it is unconstitutional. They can’t alter their pay for nearly 2 years – the next Congress.

Well, here’s a solution – TAX THEM 100% IF THEY FAIL TO PASS A BUDGET!

And give it a cutesy name like “Budget Preservation Act” or the “Harry Reid – Do Your F@#$%ing Job Act”.

But as we learned from Chief Justice Roberts, Congress does have the power to tax.

So give the Senators a 100% Income tax Rate with a 100% reduction in the tax rate if they pass a budget.

How’s that for Constitutional?

And anyone want to bet the Senate will actually pass a budget that is more then 4 years overdue?

Tom is a US Navy Veteran, owns an Insurance Agency and is currently an IT Manager for a Virginia Distributor. He has been published in American Thinker, currently writes for the Richmond Examiner as well as Virginia Right! Blog.Tom lives in Hanover County, Va and is involved in politics at every level and is a Recovering Republican who has finally had enough of the War on Conservatives in progress with the Leadership of the GOP on a National Level.

2 Responses to “‘No Budget – No Pay’ Unconstitutional? No Problem Make it a 100% Tax!”

Actually the amendment was put in so that voters could express their disatisfaction in Congress for voting a raise because there would have to be an intervening election (i.e. where the raise would be an issue) before it could take effect – sort of like how you need an intervening election of the Virginia General Assembly to pass a Constitutional Amendment here. It’s so the people can have a say in electing a new composition.

Nonetheless, I worry about this “No Budget. No Pay.” Rule. I understand that most of our Representatives are rich, but are we now to EXPECT them to be rich? If I was an average, no family-money Congressman, living only on my Washington salary while paying for my kids to go to college and a mortgage (not saying this is likely, but I like to believe an “average” person could still THEORETICALLY become a member of Congress.) What if I supported every effort to get a budget, but my colleagues were not as urgent. Then all of our pay gets docked, but it doesn’t matter for them since they accrue millions of their investments, trusts, bribes, etc. while I would suffer. It harms the least financially secure Congressman (and in the example, I would then probably be more receptive to taking a Bribe because I know have no income.)

I just don’t like to enshrine the idea that you MUST be rich to be in Congress into our laws.